Thorny

It’s kinda odd. The poll results have Kulich as only the third most likely to become a star, but ranks two players as less likely to become stars in the following question Anyway I had Quinn Kulich and Östlund

Ahh good old Jocelyn Hecht I liked him

Do you think Adams will draft based on a BPA philosophy or do you think position will factor in significantly? (Yes, there’s the semantic “best is subjective and can include position” @GA but let’s just go with a more strict definition of “best” for the sake of argument )

What I would do? Something like this probably

Here’s one of the many articles that sorta gets into it, if you find this kind of stuff interesting https://theleafsnation.com/news/amp/is-it-worth-it-to-trade-up-in-the-nhl-draft “This is exactly why it usually makes more sense to trade down than up: it isn’t so much that GMs overvalue high draft picks, but that they undervalue low ones. Thus, it may not even be that you’re giving yourself more kicks at the can that makes trading down a smart decision, but that you’re in many cases unknowingly increasing the overall value of your original draft pick the more times you trade down, the more picks you acquire. For what it’s worth, my understanding is that Kyle Dubas is a big fan of trading down in the draft. In the OHL you actually can’t trade your first round pick, which was apparently much to his chagrin. That’s both good news and unsurprising given his interest in analytics.“ - - - this one is ok too https://hockeyandstuff.weebly.com/chaces-blog/how-bad-has-trading-up-been

You misunderstand, I’m not talking about trading out of rounds and trading out of tiers. I’m talking about trading back a few spots and picking up an extra pick in the process. Moving from 43rd to 48th isn’t going to alter your odds, the likelihood the pick is going to “hit” there is relatively poor to begin with. Acknowledging that and giving yourself 2 kicks at the can for the cost of a few spots is the right play in most cases. Of course, there are times a GM is super dialled in on a guy, but even in those cases it’s often hubris

Kinda interested to see where Dahlin falls in Norris voting. Hoping for 4th, but probably shouldn’t get my hopes up

Your clarification of Spunk was the real mvp - - - Cozens is a two-way force for sure, i staunchly advocated before last season for Dylan (as opposed to Casey) to remain at C exactly for this reason: I’m glad the staff felt the same way so far

I’ve read a lot of data that suggests the opposite, trading down in the NFL makes less sense because of the higher certainty of scouting whereas in the NHL it pays to pick up extra picks because much of it is crap shoot anyways the historical data on the difference in value between pick i dunno 13 and pick say 20 is a significantly less affecting variable than the quality of GM doing the pick. I’d be fine moving down a few spots in fact id advocate for it outright

I’m a big big ole proponent of trading down, just in general as a concept

Respectfully, this reads like a pre-written straw man for the inevitable “what could Adams have even done?” line of thinking. It doesn’t really stand to reason to think that, for some reason, Adams is across the board being lowballed by GMs. There’s also a staggering degree of “because Buffalo” included in this line of thinking. Plenty of teams have good prospect pools, plenty that have gotten ranked 1st over the years have found a way to make trades. It goes both ways: teams might think we have some wiggle room but they are also then aware the pool itself is deep: demanding better prospects from us only works if they actually consummate a trade: contrary to popular belief the goal of the rest of the league isn’t to ensure Buffalo stays at the bottom. At the end of the day a GM wouldn’t take a lesser prospect from another team, literally cut off their nose to spite their face, to spite Buffalo simply because they “feel” we can handle giving up more. “Ah, we couldn’t get Buffalo’s 4th ranked prospect, but we got a guy who, while worse, is relatively higher in the Yotes pool!” Not much logic to it

This is a big reason it’s easy for me to trade 13 for Hellebuyck. We have prospect/asset liquidity and having what likely (imo) amounts to a pretty great season with him between the pipes is a worthy pursuit to me

What a bold stance to take in these parts, and I mean that in seriousness lol.

There’s a non negligible chance we just saw Tage’s career year, and I like Quinn better defensively already. Tuch I think will be exiting his prime as Quinn is entering his. It’s not so much that I think Quinn will be better than these guys, just liable to have his best years at a time where he might lead the charge. Cozens definitely could be the better all around F. Quinn has a little extra something Cozens doesn’t though imo, that raw finish around the net A little more pure skill

Quinn for me. I see him ending up as a Mark Stone type player. I don’t see the ceiling others do with Peterka but he’s certainly got legitimate top 6 upside. Savoie/Kulich. Who knows. Need to see more of them. I do like Savoie stylistically, reminds of Briere somewhat. The only one I see as a sure sure thing (star wise) is Quinn. I’ve said before I think he has a good shot at being our best forward in a couple years.

So hold on, “untouchable” IS a thing and the Pegulas are using it? in seriousness, so certain players will be valued differently by the GM in trades based on the views of the owners? i mean, they are the owners, I guess

I’m losing track of the argument. I thought it was just no to a 1st, Hellebuyck actually isn’t good, now? The reason the Jets lost is because of him? And I say lost, they went to a conference final and won another round or 2 another year. I’d kill for that kind of losing lol. Regardless, any failures they’ve experienced haven’t been on him. He’s generally carried them much more so than benefited by their makeup

12 years! aight I’m sold, shoulda just led with that

Untouchable for the holes we are trying to fill sure but surely not “untouchable”. untouchable is the new generational Their roster sucks lol

The moment the calendar turns over to the 2023-24 season that first would become unmovable to you. It’s based on few months, and it’s wildly arbitrary trade 13

“Better management” lol what are we even doing here. Anderson. id take the vezina guy and win Your argument makes it seem like him having one year isn’t A factor, but rather that it rules out him being a viable option in totality. I guess I just don’t understand why 1 year has to have NO value. ONLY the future can matter

I made a big addition to my post but yes, for “only” one year one measly year, right?

I’ll use the 13 for Hellebuyck example. I’d pay it straight up A first is arguably too much based purely on value given no extension but the benefit to our actual team next season, not purely within the vacuum of tradezone! but in actual results (not to mention the probable resulting enjoyment factor of this viewer) is immense and imo immensely worth it. Because our pool is so deep this type of swap very much works

Bold is a great real-life example of what I mean when I say “bang for your buck” trade philosophy vs ends justify the means. As for my view, Imo once you are trying to “fill in the corners” of your team, these types of swaps become necessary not Peterka specifically btw just in general